In this day and age, you will not have to look far for topical acne treatments. This is plain and simply due to the overwhelming skin disease known as acne. Although it may not be fatal or harmful to your health in any way, it can certainly have a detrimental impact on your self esteem. [...]
Many men, women, and especially teenagers are afflicted with some sort of acne. What many people fail to realize is that this is a skin disease. I know what you are thinking. Disease sounds so harsh! Well, even though it sounds a bit extreme, that is exactly what acne blemishes are. Since the majority of [...]
People often have a hard time believing that they have a disorder. It takes certain scientific proof to convince them that something might be amiss. Consider this simple little video game-like test for attention deficit disorder. It’s a machine that is shaped like a little desk with a curved plastic surround. There is a computer [...]
My best friend tried for months to get pregnant; she didn’t actually try standard medical help at first though. She kept a journal of how her menstrual cycle progressed, and after several months, she found a pattern – she was ovulating a week late, in the third week of each month rather than the second [...]
Andrew Wallenstein at The Hollywood Reporter suggests more than Al Gore’s marriage is crumbling. Gore’s cable channel Current TV is facing a dramatic makeover with an injection of MTV executives. Wallenstein tried to sugarcoat the inconvenient truths:
For all the brilliance he has displayed grasping the meteorological dynamics governing the globe, Gore has miscalculated those of a slightly less complex world: the TV business. The radical ambitions he brought to the environment didn’t pan out the same way in cable; the television will not be revolutionized.
Gore tried to sell off Current to his Google pals for half a billion dollars, but that didn’t take. So they’re taking the content away from small-d democracy and toward the persistent formula of other youth-culture channels, loaded with young-skewing documentaries and "reality" TV:
For much of the past year, Current TV has been quietly undergoing an overhaul that will change just about everything but the struggling channel’s name. Current declined comment for this story.
It’s a revitalization project Gore & Co. embarked on after exhausting a more lucrative possibility: selling the channel. Current’s founding partner, Joel Hyatt, spent much of 2009 shopping the network with a price tag that wildly overestimated the company’s worth, confirmed sources at several conglomerates. Current even had extensive sale talks as far back as 2007 with Google, where Gore serves as a senior advisor.
Now the focus has shifted to fixing Current, perhaps with an eye toward a sale down the road. Last July, Hyatt was replaced as CEO by Mark Rosenthal, the former MTV Networks COO who is rebuilding the channel in the traditional mold Gore avowed to avoid, only to suffer the consequences.
Rosenthal has brought in a crew of colleagues from his MTVN days including an unlikely ringer: Brian Graden, the programming genius who masterminded hit series from "South Park" to "The Osbournes," before leaving last year. He’s on retainer as a consultant.
Graden helped found the gay channel Logo and expressed joy last year at bringing documentaries to MTV with titles like "I’m Changing My Sex" and "I Work In the Sex Industry." So here’s where the format change comes in:
Forget bite-sized clips created by anonymous viewers; the new Current will consist of full-length series from the usual suspects in unscripted production who are getting the word that Current is open for business….
Several senior MTVN colleagues were brought in as consultants to engineer the turnaround including Hank Close, formerly president of ad sales. Several more key full-time hires have been made as well.
But original programming is at the heart of any successful cable network, and for that he’s turned to Graden, who’s known for his knack for hits. Graden and Current make for an unusual combination. A network that has devoted significant time to serious topics ranging from AIDS in Africa to New Age spirituality is in the hands of Graden, who didn’t exactly win Peabodys for shows often criticized for corrupting America’s youth.
Graden did not respond to an email seeking comment.
The MTV infusion at Current is ironic considering the channel is essentially facing the same fundamental problem MTV confronted so successfully in the 1990s: a TV schedule comprised of multi-minute clips is far less advertising-friendly than the half-hours that ensure viewer tune-in isn’t so erratic.
In other words, MTV "so successfully in the 1990s" dumped all the music videos in favor of "The Real World" ad infinitum, et cetera.
[HT: Dan Isett]
Based on the view of a single economist, ABC portrayed the agreement by world powers, at the G-20 summit in Toronto, to pursue fiscal sanity over the accelerated government spending urged by President Barack Obama, as a threat the well-being of the American people. “President Obama lost an argument today with other world leaders, and some economists say that could plunge the world into a second recession,” Dan Harris intoned at the top of Sunday’s World News.
From Toronto, reporter David Kerley agreed: “The President lost the argument and there could be serious consequences. Some economists are saying what was decided in Toronto today could actually lead to a double-dip recession.” A dire Kerley elaborated: “The worry is that by turning off the stimulus spigot the fragile economic recovery could disappear and turn into a double-dip recession.”
ABC’s “some economists” turned out to be a single one, Professor Peter Morici of the University of Maryland, who ominously warned: “It will be very difficult to recover from that. Then we start to get into depression-like conditions.”
Kerley forecast not following Obama’s policies will mean “an unemployment rate that could rise again, this time above ten percent, no recovery in the housing market and an even tighter credit market. And all of this could last another two to three years.”
From the Sunday, June 27 World News on ABC:
DAN HARRIS: Good evening. President Obama lost an argument today with other world leaders, and some economists say that could plunge the world into a second recession. The President went to this weekend’s summit meeting in Canada to convince other wealthy nations to keep spending still stimulate their economies. But they said no, arguing now is the time to start cutting deficits. So, who is right here and what does that mean for your wallet? We’re going to start tonight with David Kerley, who is at the G-20 summit in Toronto. David, good evening.
DAVID KERLEY: Good evening, Dan. You’re right. The President lost the argument and there could be serious consequences. Some economists are saying what was decided in Toronto today could actually lead to a double-dip recession.
Screams and cheers for President Oobama during a photo shoot. But his G-20 colleagues didn’t buy his argument that they need to keep spending to stimulate their economies, rather than turning to cutting deficits.
STEPHEN HARPER, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Advanced countries must send a clear message that as our stimulus plans expire, we will focus can on getting our fiscal houses in order. Specifically, we should agree that deficits will be halved by 2013.
KERLEY: It is a major split for the major economies, which have been on the same page for a year and a half. The President gave in, signaling as much when he met with the new British Prime Minister.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: There are going to be differentiated responses between the two countries because of our different positions, but we are aiming at the same direction which is long-term sustainable growth that puts people to work.
KERLEY: The worry is that by turning off the stimulus spigot the fragile economic recovery could disappear and turn into a double-dip recession.
PROFESSOR PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: It will be very difficult to recover from that. Then we start to get into depression-like conditions.
KERLEY: What does that mean? An unemployment rate that could rise again, this time above ten percent, no recovery in the housing market and an even tighter credit market. And all of this could last another two to three years.
MORICI: What Europe did today would be like taking up smoking. You don’t know when it’s going to make you sick, but it will make you sick.
KERLEY: The weekend meetings here in Toronto were targeted by protesters who took to the streets, burning cars and breaking windows. Canada spent nearly a billion dollars on security. That’s $12 million per hour that the world leaders were here in town. More than 500 protesters were arrested. Dan?
A truly extraordinary thing happened on this weekend’s "The Chris Matthews Show": the host asked his panel if former Alaska governor Sarah is the most important Republican in the country right now.
What made this even more surprising was how his guests – CNN’s Gloria Borger, Politico’s John Harris, the BBC’s Katty Kay, and former "CBS Evening News" host Dan Rather — seemed to feel she was.
Most bullish on Palin was Rather who said, "I wouldn’t underestimate her…If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination."
For his part, Matthews played a little bit of a misdirection with his viewers by predictably bashing Palin during the program’s introduction (multiple videos follow with highlights and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: She was a governor that couldn’t take it anymore. Ridiculed as a Bozo, all she could do was cash in get what she could on the way off the stage. But a year later, with zillions in her pocket, she’s an even better bet to run.
As the opening segment about President Obama and Generals McChrystal and Petraeus came to an end, Matthews told his viewers:
MATTHEWS: Before we break, it was a year ago that Sarah Palin called that surprise news conference out there in the lawn in Wasilla to announce she was quitting as Alaska governor. David Letterman had a lot of fun with that.
What followed was one of Letterman’s typically derogatory "Top Tens" about Palin:
After the commercial, Matthews played a clip from Palin’s resignation speech last July:
SARAH PALIN: With this announcement that I’m not seeking re-election, I determined it is best to transfer the authority of governor, to Lieutenant Governor Parnell.
MATTHEWS: Transfer the authority? Well, she quit. A lot of people thought that was a short-sighted move, that quitting would end her career as an elected politician. Well, a year since then Palin’s made well over $12 million. Her first book "Going Rogue" was the year’s number one best-seller, made her $7 million in the advance. She gets $100,000 a speech, and Fox signed her to a TV deal. Besides getting to be rich, has she become, I would ask you open-ended, is she the most important Republican right now in the country?
Kay was the first to answer, making some surprisingly positive comments about the former Governor and her success assisting Republican candidates in recent primaries.
When Matthews commented that Palin seems to be only backing winners, Borger countered that maybe they’re winning BECAUSE of her support.
For his part, Harris was a little less enthusiastic, but also gave an uncharacteristically upbeat view of the former vice presidential candidate.
But the best was yet to come when Rather got his turn:
DAN RATHER: Well, she’s not running at the moment for President. But I wouldn’t underestimate her. She’s a version now of a Deacon with four aces. She can go a lot of different ways. She is playing an almost perfect hand. If she wants to stay a power in the Party, make a lot of money and not run, she can do that. I wouldn’t underestimate her even for 2012 for one second. If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination.
MATTHEWS: Good point. Is she Richard Nixon? Is she going around and picking up chits, proving that she can deliver, carefully selecting winners, avoiding losers when they’re on the right, so that day after this election, like Nixon did in ‘66, "Look what I did for the party, I should be the nominee?"
RATHER: And goes into the convention with maybe thirty percent of the votes.
Imagine that.
For approaching two years, America’s press have been mercilessly eviscerating this woman with every opportunity.
Now, with Obama plummeting in the polls, and Democrats looking like they’re in a lot of trouble in the upcoming midterm elections, suddenly Palin is not only possibly the most important Republican in the country, but is also a legitimate candidate for President.
Is hell freezing over, or is something else at play here?
Lara Logan, CBS’s chief foreign affairs correspondent, took to CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday to accuse Michael Hastings, who was interviewed by Howard Kurtz in the preceding segment, of using subterfuge and Rolling Stone of pushing an agenda in their hit piece on General Stanley McChrystal, both of which unfairly tarnished McCrystal and will lead to more military wariness toward the journalists. Logan castigated Hastings:
The question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal’s? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.
As for Hastings’ insistence he didn’t break any “off the record” ground rules, Logan declared: “Something doesn’t add up here. I just — I don’t believe it.”
The subterfuge really infuriated Logan: “What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he’s laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do….Clearly, you’ve got someone who is making friends with you, pretending to be sympathetic, pretending to be something that they’re not…”
Taking on Rolling Stone, Logan charged the “magazine put their own spin on this. They said that the greatest enemy for McChrystal is the wimps in Washington. Nowhere in the article does McChrystal refer to ‘the wimps in Washington.’ That’s Rolling Stone magazine, how they chose to cast this, to make it as sensational as possible. And that was with intent.”
(Logan echoed Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, who asserted on this weekend’s Inside Washington: “When they go to bars they…blow a lot of steam off. I don’t think the reporter should have printed that stuff.”)
In the pevious segment, Hastings insisted to Kurtz that he doesn’t have a political agenda: “If Bill O’Reilly is calling you a far-left critic, in my book, no matter what your political persuasion is, that probably means you’re doing a good job.”
(A couple of tweets I sent a few days ago about the political persuasions of McChrystal and Petraeus, starting with banning the wrong outlet:
> Marc Ambinder on McChrystal: A liberal, voted for Obama, “he banned Fox News from the TV sets in his headquarters.” http://bit.ly/cx1t8i
> Petraeus has home in NH where “his personal vehicle sports ‘Live Free or Die’ license plates.” Union Leader story: http://shar.es/mIeUw )
From the Sunday, June 27 Reliable Sources on CNN:
HOWARD KURTZ: If you had been traveling with General McChrystal and heard these comments about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, Richard Holbrooke, would you have reported them?
LARA LOGAN, CBS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it really depends on the circumstances. It’s hard to know — Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me, because if you look at the people around General McChrystal, if you look at his history, he was the Joint Special Operations commander. He has a history of not interacting with the media at all.
And his chief of intelligence, Mike Flynn, is the same. I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn’t add up here. I just — I don’t believe it.
KURTZ: When you are out with the troops and you’re living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement-
LOGAN: Absolutely.
KURTZ: -that you’re not going to embarrass them by reporting insults and banter?
LOGAN: Yes.
KURTZ: Tell me about that.
LOGAN: Yes, absolutely. There is an element of trust. And what I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he’s laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don’t — I don’t go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.
And, I mean, I take that to the point of, even when I apply to interview someone about something difficult, and they want to know the areas of the interview, I might not say, well, we’re going to spend the whole interview on this, but I will list that. I will list that controversial issue.
KURTZ: Because you don’t want to blindside them.
LOGAN: Because I don’t believe in that.
KURTZ: But don’t beat reporters — aren’t they nice to people to gain their confidence, and sometimes they have to write things that are not flattering?
LOGAN: Of course. I mean, the military is a good example. I have never been — they never know what to do with me because I’ve never been accused of being right wing. And they want to paint me as left wing because they expect the media to be that way. But, if you look at my body of work, it’s been always been accurate and fair.
Now, Michael Hastings might look at my body of work and say, well, there’s an example of another one of those reporters, unlike me, that didn’t go and tell the truth because they wanted to come back. That’s not the case at all.
KURTZ: He says that all of the things that have been written about Stanley McChrystal have been these glowing profiles. He’s suggesting that he did a job that the regular beat journalists have not done.
LOGAN: I think that’s insulting and arrogant, myself. I really do, because there are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he’s not the only one.
There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back. They may not have loved it. They didn’t love the piece I did about hand grenades being thrown in Iraq that were killing troops. They didn’t love that piece, it made a lot of people very angry. They didn’t block me from coming back.
KURTZ: The Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior military official as saying that Michael Hastings broke the off-the-record ground rules. But the person who said this was on background and wouldn’t allow his name to be used. Is that fair?
LOGAN: Well, it’s Kryptonite right now. I mean, do you blame them? The commanding general in Afghanistan just lost his job. Who else is going to lose his job? Believe me, all the senior leadership in Afghanistan are waiting for the ax to fall. I’ve been speaking to some of them. They don’t know who’s going to stay and who’s going to go.
I mean, the question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal’s? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.
KURTZ: Is this going to prompt the military, in general, the commanders in Afghanistan in particular, to be more wary of journalists?
LOGAN: Of course, because what you see is not what you get. Clearly, you’ve got someone who is making friends with you, pretending to be sympathetic, pretending to be something that they’re not, and then they’re taking what you say — when you start an article with General McChrystal making obscene gestures, you’re not even using something that he said.
And Rolling Stone magazine put their own spin on this. They said that the greatest enemy for McChrystal is the wimps in Washington. Nowhere in the article does McChrystal refer to "the wimps in Washington." That’s Rolling Stone magazine, how they chose to cast this, to make it as sensational as possible. And that was with intent.
MSNBC afternoon host Dylan Ratigan took to the ramparts of The Huffington Post on Thursday and urged home owners to stop paying their mortgages as a leftist protest against a government too cozy with the bankers. The title was "They Keep Stealing — Why Keep Paying?"
The crisis was all Wall Street’s fault, and now they’re back to paying themselves bonuses after a federal bailout. So stop paying them. (Notice Ratigan doesn’t suggest you protest Washington and TARP by refusing to pay your taxes.) This piece sounds like a direct-mail letter:
You didn’t cause this mess. They did.
Now you are struggling to make the same payments on this mortgage on your now overpriced home even in light of a crashing economy and massive deflation, all while the government does everything in its power to help Wall St. keep the bonuses coming.
Well, it is becoming time to take matters into your own hands… I suggest that you call your lender and tell them if they don’t lower you mortgage by at least 20%, you are walking away. And if they don’t agree, you need to consider walking away.
It probably doesn’t feel right to you.
That is because you probably are a good person. But your mortgage is a business deal, and it is not immoral to walk away from a business deal unless you went in to the deal with the intention of defaulting.
But somehow, even though the corporations are pumped to exercise their new rights, former bankers like Henry Paulson, current ones like Jamie Dimon and — get this — now even Fannie Mae execs want to keep you from exercising your rights.
But before you let them (or anyone commenting below) force you into paying that $500k mortgage on a $300k house, ask them if they’ll push Jerry Speyer into "honoring his obligation" by breaking into his $2 billion personal piggy-bank to keep paying for Stuyvesant Town?
Or how about asking Hank and Jamie to lecture fellow bailed-out CEO John Mack about how "you’re supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them"? Maybe make him use some of his $50+ million for those buildings he bought in San Francisco?
And before shaming and punishing American homeowners, did they nag Steve Feinberg about helping "teach the American people…not to run away" by writing a check out of his billion-dollar pocket to cover all the stiffed landlords and vendors at Mervyn’s? After all, at least you aren’t single-handedly putting 1,100 employees out of work when you walk on your mortgage.
As part of the deal for your house, your mortgage holder gets interest payments from you and they also use the note to your house for their capital reserves. In return, they take the risk of a foreclosure. In many states, you paid extra to have a non-recourse loan where the lender just gets the house back if you stop paying — your interest rate would’ve been much lower if you were held personally liable like a student loan. But if you still feel bad, then donate the money saved to charity instead of to their bonuses.
Even if you agreed that everyone on Wall Street is a knave and a thief, Ratigan is still preaching that two wrongs make a right. Or, to be more precise, the second wrong helps the populist agitators regain "our captured government" from the financial elite. (Did he clear that phrase with Chris Matthews, because it sounds "dangerously anti-government," doesn’t it?)
Meanwhile, our captured government has made it clear that they want to further reward these banksters because there are clearly better ways to "save" the economy without rewarding those most responsible for the damage.
Instead of claw backs for the past theft and strong financial reform for the future, they choose to cover-up the gross misuse of our tax money, making our country worse by helping the criminals on the backs of the most honest.
But thankfully, in this country we still have the tools to fight back and regain our country. Our vote, our voice, our laws and what we choose to do with every penny we have that doesn’t go to taxes are the benefits of our hard-fought freedom, and in this battle we must use them all to fight back. It’s time for the citizens to once again own this place.
[HT: Jack Coleman]
As pathetic as Joe Biden’s thin-skinned "Why do you have to be such a smart-a**" comment to a Milwaukee-area custard shop manager was yesterday (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), it wasn’t even the Vice President’s worst Wisconsin Saturday moment.
A far worse moment, in terms of familiarity with the truth, occurred as Biden rewrote history and unilaterally revised economic growth upward in a speech to Democrats in support of Senator Russ Feingold’s reelection.
In a CBS News online report by Stephanie Condon that I suspect will not make it to the airwaves Biden was dour and downbeat, while misstating economic reality:
Biden: We Can’t Recover All the Jobs Lost
Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."
Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.
"We inherited a godawful mess," he said, adding there was "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."
… Biden said today the economy is improving and noted that in the past four quarters, there has been 4 percent growth in the economy. Over the last five months, more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created.
I have no idea how Biden arrived at his $3 trillion figure; I’m guessing Ms. Condon doesn’t either.
One very minor error: The Vice President’s claim that "more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created" is false, but barely. On a seasonally adjusted basis, it’s 495,000, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The big error: GDP growth has been nowhere near 4% during the past four quarters, no matter how you define "the past four quarters" (compounding was ignored for simplicity’s sake):
The 2.5% estimate for 2Q10 is based on the assertion in this Friday Associated Press report that "Economists expect slower growth ahead" from 1Q10’s annualized 2.7%.
Biden’s economic growth assertion is nowhere near true no matter how one interprets it. If 2Q10 growth comes in at an annualized 5.5% or higher, readers can come back and crow that Biden was really right. Good luck with that.
Stephanie Condon should have known better than to blindly relay Biden’s false assertion. Does anyone else besides me think that she would have checked it out if Dick Cheney had said it instead?
Photo at top right is at CBS link via AP.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
